CDZ Going to suggest a solution

[CowboyTed]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

 

[CowboyTed]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

beings youre not an american I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself,,,

So you don't want to discuss how a vast majority of the world runs there elections...

This type of system is what the US put in Iraq...

Do you not find it interesting that the US selected this for another country?

Why do you feel so threatened by a new idea?

 

[Pogo]

I like the ranked voting, but running both Senate seats at the same time doesn't make sense. They're staggered intentionally.

 

[progressive hunter]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

beings youre not an american I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself,,,

So you don't want to discuss how a vast majority of the world runs there elections...

This type of system is what the US put in Iraq...

Do you not find it interesting that the US selected this for another country?

Why do you feel so threatened by a new idea?

our problem is our politicians are corrupt and know they are rigging the system and have no plan to allow any change that would take away their power,,

until both parties are banned from fed politics nothing will change,,, and if it is changed they will corrupt that too,,,

and the constitution is fine how it is,,

 

[CowboyTed]

I like the ranked voting, but running both Senate seats at the same time doesn't make sense. They're staggered intentionally.

Fair comment... I pushing it bit at that point...

Problem with ranked voting for one seat, parties usually run one candidate... This brings back the primary threat... It would increase independent candidates....

 

[CowboyTed]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

beings youre not an american I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself,,,

So you don't want to discuss how a vast majority of the world runs there elections...

This type of system is what the US put in Iraq...

Do you not find it interesting that the US selected this for another country?

Why do you feel so threatened by a new idea?

our problem is our politicians are corrupt and know they are rigging the system and have no plan to allow any change that would take away their power,,

until both parties are banned from fed politics nothing will change,,, and if it is changed they will corrupt that too,,,

and the constitution is fine how it is,,

Progressive, thanks for discussing, I appreciate that....

I will point out that this type of voting makes it far harder to have corruption... A cleaner alternative can come through the party quite easily...

Good politicians that deliver nationally or locally do well... Just minding the base and ignoring the rest doesn't work out that well, normally...

Long serving politicians in Europe generally have a long list of delivering things...

 

[progressive hunter]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

beings youre not an american I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself,,,

So you don't want to discuss how a vast majority of the world runs there elections...

This type of system is what the US put in Iraq...

Do you not find it interesting that the US selected this for another country?

Why do you feel so threatened by a new idea?

our problem is our politicians are corrupt and know they are rigging the system and have no plan to allow any change that would take away their power,,

until both parties are banned from fed politics nothing will change,,, and if it is changed they will corrupt that too,,,

and the constitution is fine how it is,,

Progressive, thanks for discussing, I appreciate that....

I will point out that this type of voting makes it far harder to have corruption... A cleaner alternative can come through the party quite easily...

Good politicians that deliver nationally or locally do well... Just minding the base and ignoring the rest doesn't work out that well, normally...

Long serving politicians in Europe generally have a long list of delivering things...

theres a big difference between the USA and all other countries,,

here we dont want our politicians doing anything for us,, we want them to leave us alone and deal with their constitutional duties,,,

 

[CowboyTed]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

beings youre not an american I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself,,,

So you don't want to discuss how a vast majority of the world runs there elections...

This type of system is what the US put in Iraq...

Do you not find it interesting that the US selected this for another country?

Why do you feel so threatened by a new idea?

our problem is our politicians are corrupt and know they are rigging the system and have no plan to allow any change that would take away their power,,

until both parties are banned from fed politics nothing will change,,, and if it is changed they will corrupt that too,,,

and the constitution is fine how it is,,

Progressive, thanks for discussing, I appreciate that....

I will point out that this type of voting makes it far harder to have corruption... A cleaner alternative can come through the party quite easily...

Good politicians that deliver nationally or locally do well... Just minding the base and ignoring the rest doesn't work out that well, normally...

Long serving politicians in Europe generally have a long list of delivering things...

theres a big difference between the USA and all other countries,,

here we dont want our politicians doing anything for us,, we want them to leave us alone and deal with their constitutional duties,,,

And that is why there would be a libertarian party for you.... Possibly (I don't know all your opinions)....

The Libertarian party could campaign on very limited government in the truest sense. There block of votes could hold a big sway in how things are done.

Having no government involvement would mean no trade wars or heavy immigration policies... But that might not sit well with you, I don't know.
This allows you to find a candidate that suits your view rather than a big tent candidate who you vote for because you didn't want a Democrat elected (I presume you dislike Democrats).

You not forced to pick the less worse candidate but pick the one that is closest to your views...

if that candidate gets elected or your second or third choice you can feel represented. That candidate would know he got elected by your second or third choice and he has to keep you vote. You retain the power.

 

[progressive hunter]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

beings youre not an american I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself,,,

So you don't want to discuss how a vast majority of the world runs there elections...

This type of system is what the US put in Iraq...

Do you not find it interesting that the US selected this for another country?

Why do you feel so threatened by a new idea?

our problem is our politicians are corrupt and know they are rigging the system and have no plan to allow any change that would take away their power,,

until both parties are banned from fed politics nothing will change,,, and if it is changed they will corrupt that too,,,

and the constitution is fine how it is,,

Progressive, thanks for discussing, I appreciate that....

I will point out that this type of voting makes it far harder to have corruption... A cleaner alternative can come through the party quite easily...

Good politicians that deliver nationally or locally do well... Just minding the base and ignoring the rest doesn't work out that well, normally...

Long serving politicians in Europe generally have a long list of delivering things...

theres a big difference between the USA and all other countries,,

here we dont want our politicians doing anything for us,, we want them to leave us alone and deal with their constitutional duties,,,

And that is why there would be a libertarian party for you.... Possibly (I don't know all your opinions)....

The Libertarian party could campaign on very limited government in the truest sense. There block of votes could hold a big sway in how things are done.

Having no government involvement would mean no trade wars or heavy immigration policies... But that might not sit well with you, I don't know.
This allows you to find a candidate that suits your view rather than a big tent candidate who you vote for because you didn't want a Democrat elected (I presume you dislike Democrats).

You not forced to pick the less worse candidate but pick the one that is closest to your views...

if that candidate gets elected or your second or third choice you can feel represented. That candidate would know he got elected by your second or third choice and he has to keep you vote. You retain the power.

based on that comment you havent really read our constitution,,,

all political parties should be banned from fed politics..............

their job is to represent their state or people of their state not a party,,

they swear an oath to do that and dont,,

 

[CowboyTed]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

beings youre not an american I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself,,,

So you don't want to discuss how a vast majority of the world runs there elections...

This type of system is what the US put in Iraq...

Do you not find it interesting that the US selected this for another country?

Why do you feel so threatened by a new idea?

our problem is our politicians are corrupt and know they are rigging the system and have no plan to allow any change that would take away their power,,

until both parties are banned from fed politics nothing will change,,, and if it is changed they will corrupt that too,,,

and the constitution is fine how it is,,

Progressive, thanks for discussing, I appreciate that....

I will point out that this type of voting makes it far harder to have corruption... A cleaner alternative can come through the party quite easily...

Good politicians that deliver nationally or locally do well... Just minding the base and ignoring the rest doesn't work out that well, normally...

Long serving politicians in Europe generally have a long list of delivering things...

theres a big difference between the USA and all other countries,,

here we dont want our politicians doing anything for us,, we want them to leave us alone and deal with their constitutional duties,,,

And that is why there would be a libertarian party for you.... Possibly (I don't know all your opinions)....

The Libertarian party could campaign on very limited government in the truest sense. There block of votes could hold a big sway in how things are done.

Having no government involvement would mean no trade wars or heavy immigration policies... But that might not sit well with you, I don't know.
This allows you to find a candidate that suits your view rather than a big tent candidate who you vote for because you didn't want a Democrat elected (I presume you dislike Democrats).

You not forced to pick the less worse candidate but pick the one that is closest to your views...

if that candidate gets elected or your second or third choice you can feel represented. That candidate would know he got elected by your second or third choice and he has to keep you vote. You retain the power.

based on that comment you havent really read our constitution,,,

all political parties should be banned from fed politics..............

their job is to represent their state or people of their state not a party,,

they swear an oath to do that and dont,,

Constitution doesn't ban parties otherwise they would never exist.... We are were we are right now...

Maybe there would be a Constitution Party (which sound s close to the libertarian party, but if I am wrong, hands up)...

This would weaken the two party model, and create more independent in effect...

Look at the vote results I posted..
Eamon O'Cuiv is the second most conservative candidate (Nicola Daveron is the most) and he topped the poll (he is a far more intelligent candidate, he knows stuff inside out, I don't alway agree with him but I have the highest respect for him and have even canvassed for his running mate John Connelly).
But also look in this 5 seater, two independents got elected. Noel Grealish is a pro Business candidate while Cathrine is Leftist.

 

[progressive hunter]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

beings youre not an american I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself,,,

So you don't want to discuss how a vast majority of the world runs there elections...

This type of system is what the US put in Iraq...

Do you not find it interesting that the US selected this for another country?

Why do you feel so threatened by a new idea?

our problem is our politicians are corrupt and know they are rigging the system and have no plan to allow any change that would take away their power,,

until both parties are banned from fed politics nothing will change,,, and if it is changed they will corrupt that too,,,

and the constitution is fine how it is,,

Progressive, thanks for discussing, I appreciate that....

I will point out that this type of voting makes it far harder to have corruption... A cleaner alternative can come through the party quite easily...

Good politicians that deliver nationally or locally do well... Just minding the base and ignoring the rest doesn't work out that well, normally...

Long serving politicians in Europe generally have a long list of delivering things...

theres a big difference between the USA and all other countries,,

here we dont want our politicians doing anything for us,, we want them to leave us alone and deal with their constitutional duties,,,

And that is why there would be a libertarian party for you.... Possibly (I don't know all your opinions)....

The Libertarian party could campaign on very limited government in the truest sense. There block of votes could hold a big sway in how things are done.

Having no government involvement would mean no trade wars or heavy immigration policies... But that might not sit well with you, I don't know.
This allows you to find a candidate that suits your view rather than a big tent candidate who you vote for because you didn't want a Democrat elected (I presume you dislike Democrats).

You not forced to pick the less worse candidate but pick the one that is closest to your views...

if that candidate gets elected or your second or third choice you can feel represented. That candidate would know he got elected by your second or third choice and he has to keep you vote. You retain the power.

based on that comment you havent really read our constitution,,,

all political parties should be banned from fed politics..............

their job is to represent their state or people of their state not a party,,

they swear an oath to do that and dont,,

Constitution doesn't ban parties otherwise they would never exist.... We are were we are right now...

Maybe there would be a Constitution Party (which sound s close to the libertarian party, but if I am wrong, hands up)...

This would weaken the two party model, and create more independent in effect...

Look at the vote results I posted..
Eamon O'Cuiv is the second most conservative candidate (Nicola Daveron is the most) and he topped the poll (he is a far more intelligent candidate, he knows stuff inside out, I don't alway agree with him but I have the highest respect for him and have even canvassed for his running mate John Connelly).
But also look in this 5 seater, two independents got elected. Noel Grealish is a pro Business candidate while Cathrine is Leftist.

we already have a constitution party,, the problem is the system is rigged to protect the dems and repubes,,
guess who rigged it??

 

[sartre play]

Thanks, interesting will look into it. sure wish they had not gotten rid of the informative button. makes it harder to give thanks pre research.

 

[CowboyTed]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

beings youre not an american I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself,,,

So you don't want to discuss how a vast majority of the world runs there elections...

This type of system is what the US put in Iraq...

Do you not find it interesting that the US selected this for another country?

Why do you feel so threatened by a new idea?

our problem is our politicians are corrupt and know they are rigging the system and have no plan to allow any change that would take away their power,,

until both parties are banned from fed politics nothing will change,,, and if it is changed they will corrupt that too,,,

and the constitution is fine how it is,,

Progressive, thanks for discussing, I appreciate that....

I will point out that this type of voting makes it far harder to have corruption... A cleaner alternative can come through the party quite easily...

Good politicians that deliver nationally or locally do well... Just minding the base and ignoring the rest doesn't work out that well, normally...

Long serving politicians in Europe generally have a long list of delivering things...

theres a big difference between the USA and all other countries,,

here we dont want our politicians doing anything for us,, we want them to leave us alone and deal with their constitutional duties,,,

And that is why there would be a libertarian party for you.... Possibly (I don't know all your opinions)....

The Libertarian party could campaign on very limited government in the truest sense. There block of votes could hold a big sway in how things are done.

Having no government involvement would mean no trade wars or heavy immigration policies... But that might not sit well with you, I don't know.
This allows you to find a candidate that suits your view rather than a big tent candidate who you vote for because you didn't want a Democrat elected (I presume you dislike Democrats).

You not forced to pick the less worse candidate but pick the one that is closest to your views...

if that candidate gets elected or your second or third choice you can feel represented. That candidate would know he got elected by your second or third choice and he has to keep you vote. You retain the power.

based on that comment you havent really read our constitution,,,

all political parties should be banned from fed politics..............

their job is to represent their state or people of their state not a party,,

they swear an oath to do that and dont,,

Constitution doesn't ban parties otherwise they would never exist.... We are were we are right now...

Maybe there would be a Constitution Party (which sound s close to the libertarian party, but if I am wrong, hands up)...

This would weaken the two party model, and create more independent in effect...

Look at the vote results I posted..
Eamon O'Cuiv is the second most conservative candidate (Nicola Daveron is the most) and he topped the poll (he is a far more intelligent candidate, he knows stuff inside out, I don't alway agree with him but I have the highest respect for him and have even canvassed for his running mate John Connelly).
But also look in this 5 seater, two independents
got elected. Noel Grealish is a pro Business candidate while Cathrine is Leftist.

we already have a constitution party,, the problem is the system is rigged to protect the dems and repubes,,
guess who rigged it??

That is largest barrier to implementing above...

Do turkeys vote for Christmas..

They might do right now but it is a small window..

 

[Dogmaphobe]

If such a fractionalized system were to ever come to pass, I would certainly support it, especially inasmuch as the likelihood that our media would be the exclusive voice of just one of them would be diminished.

I just can't imagine the process it would take to get us from here to there, especially as the technocrats now have complete control over us and do what is best for the technocrats.

 

[CowboyTed]

If such a fractionalized system were to ever come to pass, I would certainly support it, especially inasmuch as the likelihood that our media would be the exclusive voice of just one of them would be diminished.

I just can't imagine the process it would take to get us from here to there, especially as the technocrats now have complete control over us and do what is best for the technocrats.

2/3s of both houses and 38 of the states....

That is pretty tough...

What it would take is that majority both parties see it as good...

Stability could be the common denominator that both sides want... US looks like it is going to have big swings to right and left the way it is set up at the moment. This means allies can't trust US to be consistent and Business can't plan on anticipating future business environment. Jobs would set up in more stable environments...

 

[CowboyTed]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

beings youre not an american I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself,,,

So you don't want to discuss how a vast majority of the world runs there elections...

This type of system is what the US put in Iraq...

Do you not find it interesting that the US selected this for another country?

Why do you feel so threatened by a new idea?

our problem is our politicians are corrupt and know they are rigging the system and have no plan to allow any change that would take away their power,,

until both parties are banned from fed politics nothing will change,,, and if it is changed they will corrupt that too,,,

and the constitution is fine how it is,,

Progressive, thanks for discussing, I appreciate that....

I will point out that this type of voting makes it far harder to have corruption... A cleaner alternative can come through the party quite easily...

Good politicians that deliver nationally or locally do well... Just minding the base and ignoring the rest doesn't work out that well, normally...

Long serving politicians in Europe generally have a long list of delivering things...

theres a big difference between the USA and all other countries,,

here we dont want our politicians doing anything for us,, we want them to leave us alone and deal with their constitutional duties,,,

And that is why there would be a libertarian party for you.... Possibly (I don't know all your opinions)....

The Libertarian party could campaign on very limited government in the truest sense. There block of votes could hold a big sway in how things are done.

Having no government involvement would mean no trade wars or heavy immigration policies... But that might not sit well with you, I don't know.
This allows you to find a candidate that suits your view rather than a big tent candidate who you vote for because you didn't want a Democrat elected (I presume you dislike Democrats).

You not forced to pick the less worse candidate but pick the one that is closest to your views...

if that candidate gets elected or your second or third choice you can feel represented. That candidate would know he got elected by your second or third choice and he has to keep you vote. You retain the power.

based on that comment you havent really read our constitution,,,

all political parties should be banned from fed politics..............

their job is to represent their state or people of their state not a party,,

they swear an oath to do that and dont,,

Constitution doesn't ban parties otherwise they would never exist.... We are were we are right now...

Maybe there would be a Constitution Party (which sound s close to the libertarian party, but if I am wrong, hands up)...

This would weaken the two party model, and create more independent in effect...

Look at the vote results I posted..
Eamon O'Cuiv is the second most conservative candidate (Nicola Daveron is the most) and he topped the poll (he is a far more intelligent candidate, he knows stuff inside out, I don't alway agree with him but I have the highest respect for him and have even canvassed for his running mate John Connelly).
But also look in this 5 seater, two independents got elected. Noel Grealish is a pro Business candidate while Cathrine is Leftist.

we already have a constitution party,, the problem is the system is rigged to protect the dems and repubes,,
guess who rigged it??

This is trying to unrig it a little... This won't get rid of GOP or Dems but give them competition, it would also allow the voters to pick which GOP or Dem they like, the caucus has too much power, candidates picked in dark rooms and run uncontested..

 

[Dogmaphobe]

If such a fractionalized system were to ever come to pass, I would certainly support it, especially inasmuch as the likelihood that our media would be the exclusive voice of just one of them would be diminished.

I just can't imagine the process it would take to get us from here to there, especially as the technocrats now have complete control over us and do what is best for the technocrats.

2/3s of both houses and 38 of the states....

That is pretty tough...

What it would take is that majority both parties see it as good...

Stability could be the common denominator that both sides want... US looks like it is going to have big swings to right and left the way it is set up at the moment. This means allies can't trust US to be consistent and Business can't plan on anticipating future business environment. Jobs would set up in more stable environments...

Oh, I certainly agree that it would make for a more consistent system, and these huge swings are not a goof thing, but I don't think the majority of both parties will ever see it as a good thing. They don't serve the American people as it is, so I can't see them deciding to serve the American people in the future. The technocrats and globalists have too much control over the entire situation.

I do believe there will be more consistency, however, as that control is exercised in ever increasing measures and the rights of Americans continues to be eroded. We are transitioning away from a republic using democratic principles to a more oligarchic system, the likes of which tend to be more stable since the people have little real ability to determine who leads them.

 

[CowboyTed]

If such a fractionalized system were to ever come to pass, I would certainly support it, especially inasmuch as the likelihood that our media would be the exclusive voice of just one of them would be diminished.

I just can't imagine the process it would take to get us from here to there, especially as the technocrats now have complete control over us and do what is best for the technocrats.

2/3s of both houses and 38 of the states....

That is pretty tough...

What it would take is that majority both parties see it as good...

Stability could be the common denominator that both sides want... US looks like it is going to have big swings to right and left the way it is set up at the moment. This means allies can't trust US to be consistent and Business can't plan on anticipating future business environment. Jobs would set up in more stable environments...

Oh, I certainly agree that it would make for a more consistent system, and these huge swings are not a goof thing, but I don't think the majority of both parties will ever see it as a good thing. They don't serve the American people as it is, so I can't see them deciding to serve the American people in the future. The technocrats and globalists have too much control over the entire situation.

I do believe there will be more consistency, however, as that control is exercised in ever increasing measures and the rights of Americans continues to be eroded. We are transitioning away from a republic using democratic principles to a more oligarchic system, the likes of which tend to be more stable since the people have little real ability to determine who leads them.

Actually the Globalists would think consistency is great for trade....

This system is far more democratic. Democracy is the best system for making money generally... The thing is while you want stability so does people on the other side too... We just need to see it as a win win for both sides...

 

[DudleySmith]

I posted this on the politics forum and it descended into a mud sling fest. My bad. I would love some actual feedback, constructive.

We seem to have hit an impasse politically.... Moderates are are threatened with primaries and compromise is considered evil.

Here is a possible solution.

Congress
Congressional elections would consist of 3-5 seat districts with preference voting. This is very common around the world. This would mean in effect that the two main parties would be running multiple candidates in all districts. Smaller parties and independents could also flourish as they would have better chance at the polls. Each big party has to run a big tent and put up with undesirables, this would mean rather than surrendering the middle ground, extremists in each party would be allow to splinter.
Your vote would would be given to the candidate in your highest preference. If he/she gets eliminated your vote goes to your next choice.
The voter would get more choice and doesn't have to waste there vote on a non viable candidate in the fear that there enemy winning. You vote who you want and your vote goes to that person. Here is an example of an election count

This is a 5 seater. Quota is set at Total valid votes/(number of seats +1)... This means if get to the quota you are elected and your surplus is then divided out (can explain that more if needed).
First count just counts all votes as normal, from there they discount the bottom ones and share out the next preference still in the race until a quota is reached. When some one gets elected there surplus over the quota is shared.
Big advantage is negative campaigning is far less effective, being positive reaps more as gain. You get elected usually by a lot of peoples second and third preferences. Incumbents don't usually get primaried as you see the bigger parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gail have 3 candidates each. So when elected they try and work for every one.
This also means there is no death districts... In liberal area GOP would looking for the last seat and visa versa...

Senate (possibly)
Run in the same manner but two seats could go up at the same time... So in California Republicans would trying to get the second seat and the Democrats could be looking for a shut out and visa vera in West Virgina...

It is just a thought...

I want to see what the pros and cons from your point of view would be... Try and not mention past arguments just how would you see if this was in place...

48 states have Winner Take All rules re electoral college votes, and both Democrats and Republicans have deep pockets and use them to keep other Parties off the ballots in all 50 states. There is zero chance of any peaceful 'regime change' here; it's far more likely to occur in Russia or North Korea than in the U.S. The Democrats solved their problems with uppity unwashed proles choosing the 'wrong candidates' with their 'Super Delegate' rules in the 1980's, and the GOP at long last will do the same before the next Residential election year, count on it.

Venezuela is our future political model now, forget democracy and common sense; that's all gone and it ain't coming back. Learn Mandarin and learn to rat out your neighbors for your own personal gain. The Democrats already have and most Republicans leaders are on board with that.

 

[TNHarley]

Publicly funded elections and ranked choice voting.
That would be the end to the duopoly.